People v. Monforte
2019 NY Slip Op 06451
New York Court of Appeals
Decided September 5, 2019
The New York Court of Appeals reasserted the fundamentals of subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether it was preserved for appellate review, and one’s constitutional right to have a capital case presented to the Grand Jury. The court held that issues of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the appeal. The issue of the trial court’s subject matter is so fundamental that it does not have to be preserved at the trial stage and may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant who is charged with a crime punishable by life in prison or the death penalty and is being held for action by the Grand Jury, as a matter of Constitutional Law, may not waive his right to have the case presented to the Grand Jury.
Issue:
Whether 1) a defendant who is charged with a crime that subjects him to a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty may waive his right to indictment by grand jury and, instead, be prosecuted by a superior court information ; and 2) whether a defendant can raise a jurisdictional claim on appeal after pleading guilty when his attorney fails to object.
Holding:
The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant who is subject to punishment by life in prison or death penalty may not waive the right to have his case presented to a grand jury, even where a defendant did not receive a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty. Moreover, a defendant can raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the appeals process regardless of a plea or preservation at the trial stage.
Facts:
Monforte was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree criminal use of a firearm under Penal Law §§ 125.25, 265.09. Thereafter he waived his right to indictment by grand jury and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with first-degree manslaughter to which he pled guilty. The county court accepted his plea and sentenced Monforte to 25 years in prison.
Monforte argued that because the county court lack jurisdiction to accept his plea, his waiver was invalid, and the conviction must be vacated.
Court’s Analysis:
The New York State Constitution states that “[no] person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime . . . unless on indictment of grand jury” (NY Const, art. 1 § 6. The Constitution also provides that:
“a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney.”
Similarly, CPL § 195.10 prohibits a defendant “charged with a class A felony punishable by death or life imprisonment” from waiving indictment by grand jury. Therefore, under both the New York Constitution and CPL § 195.10, a defendant held for the action of the grand jury on a class A felony punishable by life in prison may not waive indictment by the grand jury in order to be prosecuted for a lesser offense.
In Monforte’s case, he was charged with and held for action of the grand jury for second-degree murder, a class A felony subject to a sentence of life in prison. This barred Monforte from effectively waiving his right to indictment by a grand jury, and the county court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea.
According to People v. Zanghi (79 NY2d 815, 817 [1991], the Court of Appeals may consider a defendant’s jurisdictional claim on direct appeal regardless of a guilty plea and regardless of counsel’s failure to raise the claim in the lower court. A claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived.